Rule 12.2.1 (Entanglement)

[typhoon_driver]

i think it would count as damage, just like sacraficial armour

[babeth]

And my opinion is still that it becomes an untethered projectile when done on purpose anyway. And the weapons rule 12.2 neatly covers whatever you wanted to install in order to entangle your opponent as being a big no-no.
Read the rules people !
No entangling ! No permanent pinning ! Not on purpose !!! How difficult is it to understand that ?

[jim]

Elisabeth, the entire point of this thread is that many of us dont find the rules to be clear. I can see obvious ambiguities in rule 12.2.

Peter has already said his cable isnt thrown or fired - i.e. it isnt projected. How is it a projectile if it isnt projected?

[babeth]

Well, I dont see any ambiguity at all. It must be my extremely active and ever expanding imagination then that keeps me from seeing the problems you saw ?

Cables are forbidden if they can entangle the opponent, therefore you cannot put cables on your robot where it would easily entangle the opponent. This may make the tethered projectile thingy a bit tricky since that tether could entangle your opponent... so think wisely and long before you install such a device. Likewise, the tethers for the flippers can be risky too, unless tucked so deeply inside the robot where they can not do the opponent harm.

My point is that rule 12.2 states clearly enough that nobody is allowed to put loose stuff on their robot with the purpose of entangling the opponent, you are however allowed to arm your robot with weapons that can damage the opponent.

The English language is quite rich but for clarity the writers of the document have been using projectile. I do not think that they meant only bullets or pellets or javelins or whatever, they meant anything your robot throws at your opponent ! If putting ensnaring devices like cables on your robot was done with the purpose of entangling your opponent and your robot cuts it loose then it is a projectile.
Or am I using too difficult words ?

[jim]

I know this is the Internet, but theres no need to be so confrontational in your arguments.

So we can both refer to it:

12.2. Weapons or defenses, which tend to stop combat completely, of both (or more) robots. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
12.2.1. Entanglement devices. Such as nets, fishing line, cables, string, glues or tapes, which require the match to be stopped and the robots separated. (If this occurs the €˜entangler€™ forfeits the match)

So what of cables which entangle the opponent but do not require the match to be stopped and the robots separated? I can see two meanings of the rule, depending on how you interpret the final which require... clause.

1) There is a subclass of cables, and the subclass which causes the match to be stopped is banned;
2) All cables cause the match to be stopped.

Since it is obviously possible only to clog up a spinning weapon and leave both robots moving, 2) is a false assertion.

As for projectiles - you say yourself these are anything your robot throws at your opponent - my definition exactly. If its thrown, its a projectile, if it isnt thrown, its not a projectile. Trying to define the intent of anything on your robot which could come loose is going to lead to even more ambiguity in my opinion.

[gravity]

In that case, the Co2 bottle that came loose after an attack matilda made on Gravity 1 was a projectile too...

hmmm...?

[jim]

Id say it was only if it propelled itself with its own gas. If it only moved under Matildas power, then Id say not.

[babeth]

I sometimes get confrontational indeed. I must confess that my patience often gets shortened by physical problems (chronic pain) and the medication I take for it. Its not an excuse, but an explanation. Apologies can be offered on demand.

In any case, anyone reading a sports rules surely must know the difference between intended and accidently even if they are not specifically mentioned ?
If -for instance- I play soccer and tackle my opponents legs I will always get punished by the referee unless it was truly an accident. How much of these accidents have you seen happening during a soccer match ? But the soccer rules state that you should not do bodily harm unto another player. Usually they do not specificly state intentionally and subclause accidentionally. They simply state that it should not be done and leave the rest to common sense and the occasionally alert/bribed referee.

My opinion about the 12.2 rule in the Guidelines:
There are so many possible exceptions to be listed that the Guidelines would take a day to print. Common sense should be able to tell you which intended weapons system falls under these restrictions and which not. Take for instance this little check list:
1) The writers listed the most common problems: entangling devices, TX jamming, heat, fluids, shattering sawblades and projectiles. I see no difficulty in recognising these terms.
2) You all know that losing parts of your robot is counted as damage, hence you cannot afford to loose pieces.
3) You do NOT want to equip your robot with sacrificial props that might entangle your opponent, it leads to instant disqualification.
And I got all that from simply reading the rules. (No, Im lying here, I got all that from having had to translate the rules from English to Dutch for several times already.)

[richard_morris]

With regard to pinning rules - I think that they were originally written to stop pinning to the floor surface. A net would not do this by itself. Incidentally, if non-floor pinning was not OK, then Razer would have lost a number of fights as they pinned the opposition for many minutes. They certainly did with 13Black in Extreme 2 Allstars Semifinal!!
Clearly Razer pinned the opposition to thenmselves - and this was judged OK.

Another point - where is the dividing line between cluster bots and untethered projectiles?
If the clusters enter the arena as one then separate, why doesnt someone build a heavy with a big hydraulic gun which separates from a very hard, sharp edged antweight at ultra high speed? I dont know of any velocity limit for cluster separation!
Perhaps the rules should specify that clusters should enter already separated....

Richard